Everyone who actually looked this up and read the relevant information on the subject before assuming it to be true raise your hand
Here is the actual bill. It's not particularly long, bear in mind that a good amount of it is struck out because it's still being wanged on with a monkey wrench by our politicians and their army of lawyers until it's something they can agree on.
Now let me make this clear, in my reading of the bill (yes, I read the actual bill for this thread) there is no indication whatsoever that it has any application to individual patrons of a website such as Newgrounds or YouTube submitters. The bill is extremely explicit in that it targets, and I quote:
An Internet site that-
(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the-
(i) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(ii) violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(iii) sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act; or
(B) is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator or persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, ena3
bling, or facilitating the activities described under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph 5 (A);
* * *
It's basically more designed to go after sites like Piratebay, and it really has very little bearing on places like YouTube or NG except to the point that if the owners of either site were to willfully fail to ignore issues of copyright infringement they could be held liable.
The users themselves are not subject to any new copyright laws.